Why Console Specs Don't Matter

The Extra Credits crew discusses why there's a lot more in determining a console's quality and predicting its sales than the specs of the hardware itself. Many interesting insights shared within.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Knight_Crawler1826d ago (Edited 1826d ago )

Next gen console sales will be determines on how much features and entertainment each console has to offer at the cheapest price and not by how many GDDRx100 or GPUx100 each consoles has.

@knifefight: He has a point, you cannot compare the 90's and early 2000's economy to todays economy.

People, specially the casual consumer do not care about which product has the most advance and powerful technology but only care that it does what it is suppose to do and its mainstream - The 3DS vs the Vita is one of many examples of this.

Apple and Samsung Galaxy fanatics are a different breed of consumers so my comment does not apply to them as they would rather not buy food or pay child support to buy a new $600 phone each year.

wishingW3L1826d ago (Edited 1826d ago )

sales are always determined by price. The cheapest always win. But thinking it again that might change since the Wii U will be the cheapest by the time the PS4 and X720 hit the market but it appears that nobody gives a crap about it.

knifefight1826d ago (Edited 1826d ago )

So why didn't the Genesis (cheaper than SNES), GameCube (cheaper than Xbox and PS2), and Dreamcast (cheaper than Xbox and PS2) dominate their more expensive counterparts?

Yes, *I* know that. I was asking the guy above me who said that the cheapest always wins.
The cheapest obviously does not always win. You and I know this, but my question is directed at wishingW3L, because he claims that price always wins.

caseh1826d ago


SNES was technically superior, and it had SF2. :)

Gamecube was looked at as a 'kids console'

Dreamcast alienated devs like EA before launch.

In a nutshell. :D

AsimLeonheart1826d ago (Edited 1826d ago )

I believe sales depend upon a continuous stream of quality games and services at a reasonable price. PS3 is still the most expensive console but is now considered to be the best console to own. As far as specs go, only supporters of underpowered consoles like Wii and Wii U say that specs dont matter. Has anybody ever seen a PC, PS3 or XBOX gamer say that specs dont matter? Specs do matter, otherwise we all would still be playing Tetris and Pacman. Obviously, specs are not everything BUT they are important when it comes to creating bigger, better and prettier games.

Clarence1826d ago

The PS3 is the most expensive console on the market yet it has outsold the 360. Now it is currently outselling the Wii and Wii u.

Specs only matter if the developers choose the ultilize them.

adorie1826d ago (Edited 1826d ago )

$599 has destroyed your theories of "cheapest always win" Especially how it seems that the PS3 will outsell the Wii, before it's discontinued.

Qrphe1826d ago

The Dreamcast and Gamecube were cheaper than the PS2 and look how that turned out.

ThanatosDMC1826d ago

I disagree. Quality games matter.

jmc88881826d ago (Edited 1826d ago )

What's so funny about the ignorant comments in reply to what you said is them using PS3 sales totals through now to justify the $599 price tag assertion.

What these morons are doing is pretending that the PS3 sold all those units at $599 price. If they had a hint of common sense or integrity they'd realize that the vast majority of the sales came after the PS3 was significantly discounted.

Then they took a step further by pretending again that the $599 console was beating a $299-$349 console in the Wii U.

You can buy a PS3 for $229 with its much larger catalog of games.

During sales you'll see it under $200.

Why can't people realize that Wii/PS3/360 will continue to outsell Wii U/PS4/720 for the first couple of's called....COMMON SENSE.

Oh and I bought a launch premium PS3. Still works and hasn't had to be serviced at all, unlike my launch 360.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1826d ago
1826d ago Replies(3)
Jek_Porkins1826d ago

I think they matter somewhat, where I think Nintendo losses it a bit is by not having a more mature first party game to show off what the Wii U can do. If they had brought out a new game that looked better than Uncharted 2, I think people wouldn't have said much, we do know the Wii U can do pretty good things graphically, but the art style of most Nintendo first party games don't allow it.

I got caught up in the "power" wars years ago with the first Xbox, I remember arguing how much better it was, HD capable, high speed internet modem right out of the box and a HDD included, but at the end of the day it didn't do as well as the much less powerful PS2.

Oddly enough, the most powerful console has never really won a generation....weird when you think about it.

I usually buy all the consoles eventually anyway, but power is usually pretty far down the list when I'm considering a new console.

Hicken1826d ago (Edited 1826d ago )

Except this gen.

Edit: This gen isn't over, smart guy. And, currently, the most powerful of the three consoles of the seventh generation is poised to be in first place before it's all said and done.

So I repeat: except this gen.

Jek_Porkins1826d ago

How has power won this gen? Wii was the least powerful and sold 100m, Xbox 360 wasn't as powerful as the PS3 but is closing in on 80 million, both Microsoft and Nintendo made significant increases in sales from the previous generation.

khowat1825d ago

The fanboyism, it hurts, gens never end even after consoles are discontinued, because each competitor is in their own pseudo gen. The wii u is the start of the eighth gen and therefore the seventh gen should have ended but no, because the seventh gen is still going on with the ps3 and xbox 360 so we have to wait for their new console to release right? So now the eight gen starts when those two release but wait we have to wait for all the consoles to be discontinued right? So if we look at the 6th gen, the xbox was discontinued in 2006 and the ps2 was discontinued in 2012, if the ps2 wasn't the honking unbelievable god system of the second gen and the race was much closer with the xbox on top, the ps2 would have had 6 more years to catch it and surpass the xbox *note even though sales decrease drastically after a successor is released in this day and age, successors start off really close to their predecessors and therefore 6 more years can make a difference when it comes to measuring console sales*. We don't have a standard by which to fairly measure gens because ending them a different times gives some consoles advantages and disadvantages and before we decide when a gen starts and ends you will always have arguing and therefore you can only compare console sales when they are all still running, the moment the wii drops out and is discontinued you have to stop measuring because microsoft and sony have an inherent advantage. Finally all consoles are running different races on different lengths (MY OPINION HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN JUST AN IDEA ,and the only sure fire way to measure how well a console did is to measure it in its peak year and lowest year at the end and then find the average, and then compare the time difference between these years, although that it is not indicative of how well the console did throughout the gen it is indicative of whether or not the console started off well and fizzled out or was consistent all the way through which I think is more important than total sales,) but in the end we should let companies worry about sales and not fans. How many people buy your console of choice shouldn't be important to you.

Disgruntled sony fanboys are so happy that the wii dramatically declined in sales so they can feel like they won this gen too it's kind of sad to see people so enamoured with a company enough to not realize that when something is over it is over, when the wii is discontinued it physically cannot compete sales wise against the ps3 and therefore it is actually impossible to compare them after the wii is discontinued you can only compare them at the last moment, right before the wii was discontinued. It is like if they were running a race and the wii broke its legs not at the finish line but somewhere else. If the wii got to that point in 2 hours and the ps3 gets there in 4 hours then we can measure for real who would've won the race. The problem is is that is the wii didn't run consistently from start to end and started slowing where it broke its legs and could no longer compete we cannot know if it would have won because we could guess that it would have slowed down substantially be fore it got to the end or that it may have gotten renewed strength of will and would have sped up again, also if the ps3 didn't run the race consistently from start to end then it could have picked up the pace from where the wii broke its legs and could've finished the race substantially faster

If you want to measure sales thats fine but all the ways we have now will always lead to debate so don't be so rude eg. This gen isn't over, SMART GUY (caps locked for emphasis and not quotation). And, currently, the most powerful of the three consoles of the seventh generation is poised to be in first place before it's all said and done.

puamdefokejpn1826d ago

Yes they matter a lot,.. though I still play old games a lot,.. The hell I am buying a new system, if it does not have better sound, graphics, features and new gaming experiences produced on that basis.

amiga-man1826d ago (Edited 1826d ago )

Of course it matters or we would still be happy gaming on the playstation 1, Sony certainly seem to have set the bar high for next gen console gaming and as long as they don't charge for online gaming they seem to be in the box seat as far a performance and features go.

Show all comments (49)
The story is too old to be commented.